I don't think Joe is saying that you must rotate one way or the other, but rather that one jump cannot be distinguished from another by the rotation in the air. Or, for that matter, by the landing foot or landing edge.

If this is correct, then the only way to tell whether the jump you just did is a Lutz, a flip, or a toe-loop, is the take-off edge.

OK.

Well, the difference between a lutz and a toe loop involves the direction of rotation in relation to the direction of travel of the takeoff edge. If I tell you only that a jump took off from a left back outside edge with a toe assist, you don't know whether it was a lutz or a toe loop until I also tell you which direction it rotated.

Similarly for left back inside edge. Was it a flip or a toe walley?

How do we tell the difference between an intended lutz and an intended flip, especially if we don't have a good view of the blade at the exact instant of takeoff? How about by what edge the blade was on/which direction the skater was traveling as s/he started to put the other toe into the ice, along with the position of the shoulders while reaching back with the pick? Then a closeup of the blade at the end of the pick-and-liftoff process would tell us how successful the skater was in executing that intention.

First of all for us figure skating "purists" or as I like to say "from the old school of figure skating - a Lutz jump is a Lutz jump and a Flip jump is a Flip jump. Skaters learn the difference between the two jumps when they learn the differences between their basic edges. Unfortunately with the demise of the figures discipline the importance of change of edge is not often drilled into today's upcoming skater. I don't think changing the marks so a skater can squeak by on so-so executed jump is going to add to the beauty and discipline of figure skating.

How do we tell the difference between an intended lutz and an intended flip... how successful the skater was in executing that intention.

I am impressed with that language.

Joe's big lament -- quite well taken, and supported by many other posters, like LADskater above and Medusa -- is that we should not be in the business of giving out points for an "attempt." In the words of Yoda, "Do or do not. There is no try."

I agree with that. The baseball player intended to hit a home run, but instead he struck out. Mao Asada intended to do a triple Axel at Worlds, but instead
she slipped off her edge and fell on her face.

Mao got the same number of points for her attempt as the baseball player got for striking out -- and a -1 fall deduction to boot. (Although, if baseball were figure skating, the batter could still get some points on the second mark for a graceful and powerful swing. )

But...to judge the skater not by her intention but by how well she executed that intention -- that's very cool.

OT on this flutz thread, but my favorite rule is the phantom sequence. A skater “intends” to open with a triple flip-double toe combination. But she has a weak landing and is not able even to “attempt” the second jump. This is scored as a solo triple flip.

So far, so good. Now comes the place in the program, after the two minute mark, where she intends to attempt a solo triple flip. She not only intends to attempt this jump, she actually does attempt to do it. And not only does she attempt what she intends, on top of that she executes what she attempts – a triple flip!

This is scored as a 3F+SEQ – the +SEQ part being the missing double toe that she intended to put on her first jump, but in fact didn’t put on either. Her score = 5.5 times 0.80 times 1.10.

Actually, this is quite an ingeneous compromise. However silly it sounds, it nevertheless accomplishes just what we want to accomplish. It gives credit to the skater for what she did and punishes her, but only a little, for omitting what she should have done (besides the 1.3 that she might have earned for the double toe she also lost 1.21 for bending the Zayak rule, plus whatever negative GOE she got for messing up the landing of her first jump.)